About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi? and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation? is outrageous. >> sean: i hope you were paying very close attention there. because as usual when the teleprompters are not scrolling, the truth magically comes out. what you heard from the president for the first time, he admitted that rice was sent on the sunday shows, quote, at the request of the white house. now, if that is in fact the case and if susan rice was following marching orders from the president himself, well, that means she went into battle armed with white house talking points. and what do those talking points say? it appears they told her to ignore the intelligence committee because they knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind this strike. instead of telling the truth, she repeatedly blamed the death of a u.s. ambassador and three other americans on this, quote, youtube video. why? because that's what she was told to do. she was follow
, they should go after me. and i am happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. ambassador, who had nothing to do with benghazi? and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation? is outrageous. >> sean: i hope you were paying very close attention there. because as usual when the teleprompters are not scrolling, the truth magically comes out. what you heard from the president for the first time, he admitted that rice was sent on the sunday shows, quote, at the request of the white house. now, if that is in fact the case and if susan rice was following marching orders from the president himself, well, that means she went into battle armed with white house talking points. and what do those talking points say? it appears they told her to ignore the intelligence committee because they knew within 24 hours al qaeda was behind this strike. instead of telling the truth, she repeatedly blamed the death of a u.s. ambassador and three other americans on this, quote, youtube video. why? because that's what she w
. and it contradicts u.n. ambassador susan rice, who five days after the attack made the rounds on all five sunday talk shows. remember, she was pushing the position that violence was in reaction to a youtube video. what make this is scandal potentially historic in its reach and effect is the role of the president in all of this. now every day, as more evidence comes out, it is becoming more special more clear that barack obama had to know that there was mounting evidence that al qaeda was involve in this attack and that the anti-islamic video had nothing to do with the murder of ambassador stevens and three others, long before obama continued to point blame at the 13-minute youtube video. think about it this way f. obama's cia director knew almost instantaneously that an al qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack and the station chief in libya reported to washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants. and if email shows that the officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours after the attack that an islamic militant g
that the sanctions that the u.n. hats imposed on iran and the united states and obama administration touts so often. they have had no impact at all on the iranian nuclear program. that is the head of the agency. we're really in a position of diminished power and diminished ability to influence the outcome of events. >> here is what i am confused. i remember hearing that democratic nations are peaceful, hamas democratically elected in 2006, morsi government was just elected and they become more anti-american, more dangerous to israel, more anti-western. what went wrong with our understanding of democracy here? >> i think it was much too limited. democracy is a culture. it's a way of life. it's not just simply holding an election and counting votes. it takes a long time to get it in place. it's no knock on any particular region or religion to say that. people have recognized it as far back as jon stewart, in europe they didn't cover themselves in glory in the last century. in russia having passed out of authoritarianism may be going back into it. so the fact that a group can gel elected in the and th
in the mainstream media are flocking to the defense of u.n. ambassador susan rice for the role she played this this administration's cover-up of the benghazi terrorist attack. once again, they're using the race card to do it. this time it is coming from "the washington post" in an article written by the editorial board entitled the gop's attack on susan rice. it reads in part, "could it be as members of the congressional black caucus are charge that they're targeting ms. rice because she's an african american woman." they deny that, and we don't know their hearts. signatories, nearly half are from the forme form confederate. everybody knew within two or three days that this was a terror attack, except the obama white house. five sunday shows. the president two days later can't answer if it's a terrorist attack. call him out o on it, and it's race card, four more years. >> you can't color-code criticism. this is nothing to do with her skin color, susan rice. it's all about her competency. she misled the american people. that is what happened. americans want answers. those poor families of
. >> sean: earlier today u.n. ambassador susan rice met with three senators on capitol hill in an attempt to explain away why she went on all five sunday shows just days after the benghazi terror attack and tried to blame the violence on a youtube video, but after today's closed-door meeting all three senators said they're more disturbed they were before. watch this. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers we got, and some we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before, that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice i think does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> i'm more troubled today, knowing, having met with the acting director of the cia, and ambassador rice. >> joining me now with reaction, fox news contributor liz cheney. that's disturbing, considering -- >> yeah. i think the senators made a good faith effort. ambassador rice asked for the meeting. but the notion that they came out of the session more disturbed than when they went in is really troubling. and this latest shift
. yes, it is. go national. go like a pro. >> sean: earlier today u.n. ambassador susan rice met with three senators on capitol hill in an attempt to explain away why she went on all five sunday shows just days after the benghazi terror attack and tried to blame the violence on a youtube video, but after today's closed-door meeting all three senators said they're more disturbed they were before. watch this. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers we got, and some we didn't get. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before, that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice i think does not do justice to the reality at the time. >> i'm more troubled today, knowing, having met with the acting director of the cia, and ambassador rice. >> joining me now with reaction, fox news contributor liz cheney. that's disturbing, considering -- >> yeah. i think the senators made a good faith effort. ambassador rice asked for the meeting. but the notion that they came out of the session more disturbed than when they
happened from the beginning. and it contradicts u.n. ambassador susan rice, who five days after the attack made the rounds on all five sunday talk shows. remember, she was pushing the position that violence was in reaction to a youtube video. what make this is scandal potentially historic in its reach and effect is the role of the president in all of this. now every day, as more evidence comes out, it is becoming more special more clear that barack obama had to know that there was mounting evidence that al qaeda was involve in this attack and that the anti-islamic video had nothing to do with the murder of ambassador stevens and three others, long before obama continued to point blame at the 13-minute youtube video. think about it this way f. obama's cia director knew almost instantaneously that an al qaeda-affiliated group was responsible for the attack and the station chief in libya reported to washington that there were eyewitness reports that the attack was carried out by militants. and if email shows that the officials at the white house and state department were advised two hours aft
. >> sean: more of president obama's liberal allies in the mainstream media are flocking to the defense of u.n. ambassador susan rice for the role she played this this administration's cover-up of the benghazi terrorist attack. once again, they're using the race card to do it. this time it is coming from "the washington post" in an article written by the editorial board entitled the gop's attack on susan rice. it reads in part, "could it be as members of the congressional black caucus are charge that they're targeting ms. rice because she's an african american woman." they deny that, and we don't know their hearts. signatories, nearly half are from the forme form confederate. everybody knew within two or three days that this was a terror attack, except the obama white house. five sunday shows. the president two days later can't answer if it's a terrorist attack. call him out o on it, and it's race card, four more years. >> you can't color-code criticism. this is nothing to do with her skin color, susan rice. it's all about her competency. she misled the american people. that is what happened.
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)